Re: host or border router

[Peter Tattam <peter@jazz-1.trumpet.com.au>]

Some further thoughts on your comments....

Much of this MH debate is about pleasing as many interests as possible.  While
I think that no one solution is going to please everyone, I think that
compromise and hybrid solutions can be implemented in several ways might come
close. 

That said, one of the major criticisms of a host based solution is that the IP
stacks need changing and we've already deployed a lot of stuff.  I think that
the idea of a middlebox can deal with the legacy issues for the short term and
also serve to supply such infrastructure to machines that it is impractical to
impose such requirements on.

So I guess what I'm saying is that the same result can be achieved with either
host based or middlebox solutions and that we should pursue both directions
simultaneously, with the ultimate goal to have host based MH as the preferred
option for deploying such a system.

Also one possibility might be to combine the middlebox and the CCS exchange as
the two are likely to be strongly related.

There is a lot of mixing and matching that could take place and leave room for
exploration of various configurations of what I've proposed.

Peter
--
Peter R. Tattam                            peter@trumpet.com
Managing Director,    Trumpet Software International Pty Ltd
Hobart, Australia,  Ph. +61-3-6245-0220,  Fax +61-3-62450210